...

[Mal12345]

Yes, it is a problem. And Thomas' blog barely touches upon it. Though Thomas clearly has a deep understanding of the matter, he only touches upon it. He then explains it in a way that the general audience can comprehend. I also take MBTI seriously. Naturally, I take Thomas' blog seriously as well.

(Edit: End sarcasm. If you do consider functions... this doesn't explain why ESTJ's are amongst the mentally retarded, yet ISTJ's tend to be geniuses.)

Which type is more likely to focus on classroom book learning (or self-teaching methods), and which type is more likely to disdain all that, perhaps even drop out of school early and go straight into the working world and learn on the job? Which type is more likely to think that learning on the job or from experience is more important than books? Which type is more likely to go into his head and think deeply about things, the introverted SJ or the extraverted SJ?

The ESTJ I know is completely experience based and ultra-conservative. I don't know his iq but I would place it below average, due to a poor ability to communicate verbally, his writing is extremely choppy and misspelled words are frequent. He puts little effort into thinking about such things but often acts solely on instinct and experience. Spelling and grammar are not as important as getting the job done, after all, you do know what the word says or what he means and that's all that matters, right? Nobody would dare pick on his spelling or speech ability or he might just knock you down. His pride is located elsewhere than irrelevant issues that belong in the classroom and should stay in the classroom.

There is one factor concerning functions you may not be considering. It is known (and I'm sure you know this) that there is a dominant function and an auxiliary function (along with two lesser functions). The ESTJ typically puts energy into Extraverted Thinking *Te*. (Notice the spelling of "extraverted.") The ISTJ typically devotes more energy to Introverted Sensing *Si*. Therefore, in the latter case, introversion is highly developed, where internal focus is also the secret behind high iq scores. The ISTJ places greater importance on perfecting internal order (the ISTJ's external world is often just a reflection of this drive toward internal order and perfection). The ISTJ, however, is similarly aggressive in his response to criticisms because its still a physical type, but his pride is located more in the intellectual realm (internal order and perfection) and not primarily in getting the job done (external ambition) as with the ESTJ.

I realize you were thinking that since they are both using SJ functions there shouldn't be any difference, but there is. Introversion versus extraversion makes a world of difference.

 

[Mal12345]

At http://sengifted.org/articles_social/Sak_SynthesisOfResearchOnPsychologicalTypes.shtml was written:

They stated that people showing high scores on introversion (I) and intuition (N) show greater academic aptitude than those who score high on extraversion (E) and sensing (S). While sensing types almost always fall below the mean in IQ, intuition types are mostly above the mean. Indeed, IN types with P or J usually have the top scores in the comparisons of students’ SAT, IQ, and Florida Eighth Grade Test in the manual of the MBTI. However, according to McCauley and Myers, this is not necessarily related to intelligence; rather, it is related to the match between the academic characteristics of IN types and the content of aptitude tests. When gifted adolescents are compared to general high school students according to their preference for intuition, they are more likely to enjoy solving new problems and dislike doing the same thing repeatedly. They also are conclusive, impatient, and interested in complicated situations. They might be more interested in novelty according to the type theory.

The E/I scale on the MBTI is definitely the weakest category. It is the one most likely to be misdiagnosed by the test, in my experience.

Maybe you should rethink your personality type? If you're a self-diagnosed ambivert, some of my experience indicates those fall more truly toward the introverted side; but their Sensory score reveals the presence of a physically assertive side to the personality thus biasing the test result toward extraversion. Consider your functions. Are you more oriented on Extraverted Feeling (people person) or Introverted Sensing (focusing on a few deeply intense experiences versus many superficial ones)?

The reason I ask is that the ESFP in general barely manages to rise above the 50th percentile. What does it mean when you say you're "above average"? How far above? 101, or 125?

The ESFP I personally know has a professionally tested iq of 63 (no doubt falling a few points below the SD I would use in a study of this issue).

These tests are based on objectivity but the test-taker is based out of subjectivity. Self-impressions are rarely if ever objective. My first Enneagram test experience revealed this factor to me. Perhaps if more people put some objectivity into taking these tests they wouldn't give up on them as being inaccurate. Admittedly, IQ tests are far more objective than any non-standardized personality test will ever be. The MCMI-III is likely to give you a far more satisfactory result but not as accurately as an IQ test.

 

[King sns]

At http://sengifted.org/articles_social/Sak_SynthesisOfResearchOnPsychologicalTypes.shtml was written:



The E/I scale on the MBTI is definitely the weakest category. It is the one most likely to be misdiagnosed by the test, in my experience.

Maybe you should rethink your personality type? If you're a self-diagnosed ambivert, some of my experience indicates those fall more truly toward the introverted side; but their Sensory score reveals the presence of a physically assertive side to the personality thus biasing the test result toward extraversion. Consider your functions. Are you more oriented on Extraverted Feeling (people person) or Introverted Sensing (focusing on a few deeply intense experiences versus many superficial ones)?

The reason I ask is that the ESFP in general barely manages to rise above the 50% percentile. What does it mean when you say you're "above average"? How far above? 101, or 125?

The ESFP I personally know has a professionally tested iq of 63 (no doubt falling a few points below the SD I would use in a study of this issue).

These tests are based on objectivity but the test-taker is based out of subjectivity. Self-impressions are rarely if ever objective. My first Enneagram test experience revealed this factor to me. Perhaps if more people put some objectivity into taking these tests they wouldn't give up on them as being inaccurate. IQ tests are far more objective than any non-standardized personality test will ever be. The MCMI-III is likely to give you a far more satisfactory result but not as accurately as an IQ test.

No, I'm an ESFP. Extraverted sensing, extraverted thinking, and introverted feeling are my three main functions. (In that order.) My IQ is 135. I am an overall balanced person and can use most of my functions decently.

 

[Mal12345]

No, I'm an ESFP. Extraverted sensing, extraverted thinking, and introverted feeling are my three main functions. (In that order.) My IQ is 135. I am an overall balanced person and can use most of my functions decently.

Congratulations! Technically, 135 is superior, not above average.

Btw, how do you know your three main functions? Some test I don't know about?

 

[Mal12345]

I found a cognitive functions test at this site.
The result fits me perfectly.

extraverted Sensing (Se) ************************ (24)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ************************************* (37.3)
excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************************ (36.1)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************************* (31)
good use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ******************************* (31.2)
good use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************************** (38.2)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) **************** (16.1)
limited use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************* (25.9)
average use

 

[King sns]

Congratulations! Technically, 135 is superior, not above average.

Btw, how do you know your three main functions? Some test I don't know about?

Yeah. 135 is up there. I don't think I'm some kind of "exception to the rule." Cognitive functions don't say much about speed of thinking IMO. Many of the people I work with in health care are ESF's. I think we should all be scared if any of their IQ's are below 100. I just figured out my functions over the course of time. I'm not really sure, that is my very best guess on function use. When I take those tests, they tend to be around that order as well.

 

[Mal12345]

Yeah. 135 is up there. I don't think I'm some kind of "exception to the rule." Cognitive functions don't say much about speed of thinking IMO. Many of the people I work with in health care are ESF's. I think we should all be scared if any of their IQ's are below 100. I just figured out my functions over the course of time. I'm not really sure, that is my very best guess on function use. When I take those tests, they tend to be around that order as well.

You can always draw the line where you want it; in all honesty, I drew it to make my ESTJ boss, who has tons of money to spend and power to abuse but can't seem to speak a human language or write at a 3rd grade level, seem like a retard, and the horizontal middle looked like a good place.

(Yes, I know the dangers of criticizing one's boss on the internet. )

I want to thank you for giving me the idea to search around for the functions test. I've been puzzled about the order of my preferences for years. Thinking in terms of IS/NTP was never quite satisfying. Out of frustration I wanted to make up my own test based on the information in Jung's Psychological Types, but now I see it's already been done.

I am really astounded to find that my auxiliary type is ENTP. That type always seemed like a distant cousin in typological terms. But now the type description makes excellent sense to me personally. And the heavy S score turned out to be an ISTJ tertiary influence. Now my Enneagram test score makes more sense, as I have always scored a little higher on the Ennea-type One scale. Plus, all three MBTI types are on the lower right (genius) side of the chart. I'm no genius level iq, by the way, I typically score around 135. That means I'm worthless as a ditch-digger, but I might qualify to sweep floors in the physics department - perhaps if they take enough pity on my sub-genius iq score.

 

[Mal12345]

Yeah. 135 is up there. I don't think I'm some kind of "exception to the rule." Cognitive functions don't say much about speed of thinking IMO. Many of the people I work with in health care are ESF's. I think we should all be scared if any of their IQ's are below 100. I just figured out my functions over the course of time. I'm not really sure, that is my very best guess on function use. When I take those tests, they tend to be around that order as well.

Cognitive functions say absolutely nothing about speed of thinking, but speed of thinking is not usually a factor in iq tests. Sometimes it is. Sometimes lateral thinking is a bigger factor, sometimes it isn't. Some iq tests include more spatial relations problems.

But if the goals of your primary cognitive processes are internal (introverted), that's absolutely because your strengths lie in the internal realm - the place best suited for high-scoring iq tests. This is because those strengths are the cards you drew the day you were born, therefore those are the cards you are going to lead with throughout your life. And even though you may develop the potentials of the weaker cards life dealt you, the ones you started with will always be favored over those.

The Thomas blog offers this caveat with regard to the question:

A person who encountered this post when it was at Liberty Corner claims that “one would expect to see the whole spectrum of intelligences within each personality type.” Well, one does see just that, but high intelligence is skewed toward the five types listed above. I am not claiming that a small subset of MBTI types accounts for all high-IQ persons, nor am I claiming that a small subset of MBTI types is populated entirely by high-IQ persons.

This principle also applies to politics: just because (for example) you and all your friends voted for Al Gore, that doesn't mean Al Gore should have won the election.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I don't see the point in thinking that being a certain type will magically make you a genius.

You can always draw the line where you want it; in all honesty, I drew it to make my ESTJ boss, who has tons of money to spend and power to abuse but can't seem to speak a human language or write at a 3rd grade level, seem like a retard, and the horizontal middle looked like a good place.

this looks like you are taking subjective ideas and trying to dress them in objective dresses.

 

[ThatGirl]

Since a lot of the type descriptions are based on experience and the probability of how someone may react or view a situation, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that IQ could play a role in which descriptions people tend to identify with.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't see the point in thinking that being a certain type will magically make you a genius.



this looks like you are taking subjective ideas and trying to dress them in objective dresses.

It's a start! And anyway, the Thomas blog we keep referring to denies that an INTJ has to be a genius, or that a genius has to be one of those 5 types. It's in the last quote I gave above.

 

[Anew Leaf]

It's a start! And anyway, the Thomas blog we keep referring to denies that an INTJ has to be a genius, or that a genius has to be one of those 5 types. It's in the last quote I gave above.

Ah, gotcha. It just seems far too subjective and unquantifiable to me.

 

[Orangey]

Since a lot of the type descriptions are based on experience and the probability of how someone may react or view a situation make some types sound smarter than others, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that IQ could play a role in which descriptions people tend to identify with.

Fixed.

 

[KDude]

The ESFP I personally know has a professionally tested iq of 63 (no doubt falling a few points below the SD I would use in a study of this issue).

lol.. They must have been high... or had half of their head chopped off.. before taking this test. That's in the mental retardation zone. Have you conversed about various things with this ESFP? Does it come out as gibberish? If not, then their IQ is higher than that test suggests.

 

[King sns]

lol.. They must have been high... or had half of their head chopped off.. before taking this test. That's in the mental retardation zone. Have you conversed about various things with this ESFP? Does it come out as gibberish? If not, then their IQ is higher than that test suggests.

Exactly. If their IQ was that low, than I would question their ability to understand and take an MBTI test. I would also imagine that it is difficult to type someone who is mentally retarded.

 

[Mal12345]

lol.. They must have been high... or had half of their head chopped off.. before taking this test. That's in the mental retardation zone. Have you conversed about various things with this ESFP? Does it come out as gibberish? If not, then their IQ is higher than that test suggests.

Her iq has been tested and verified twice. <70 is considered retarded. She doesn't speak gibberish, and she's a high school graduate (IEP, individualized education program which is part of "no child left behind"). If someone thinks the line I drew on the chart was subjective (a better word would be "arbitrary"), what's up with iq 70? Why not draw the line at 75? Who gets to decide these things, and why?

 

[Mal12345]

Exactly. If their IQ was that low, than I would question their ability to understand and take an MBTI test. I would also imagine that it is difficult to type someone who is mentally retarded.

If she had trouble with the MBTI, which she took in high school, then all she had to do was ask the teacher or another student. And she's so verbose I'm sure she asked a lot of questions.

 

[garbage]

If you're going to draw a line, why not at 100, which is actually defined to be average?

Also, there's a lot of unnerving conflation of subjectivity and objectivity here. Mixing the two is fine, and normal, to some extent, so long as one doesn't start accidentally muddying the waters and believing his own perceptions to completely reflect objective reality. And I don't need to say anything about confirmation bias--the concept gets beaten to death here.

Typing other people is so, so subjective because it doesn't have as strong a basis in reality as we'd hope.

 

[King sns]

Her iq has been tested and verified twice. <70 is considered retarded. She doesn't speak gibberish, and she's a high school graduate (IEP, individualized education program which is part of "no child left behind"). If someone thinks the line I drew on the chart was subjective (a better word would be "arbitrary"), what's up with iq 70? Why not draw the line at 75? Who gets to decide these things, and why?

If you're going to draw a line, why not at 100, which is actually defined to be average?

Also, there's a lot of unnerving conflation of subjectivity and objectivity here. Mixing the two is fine, and normal, to some extent, so long as one doesn't start accidentally muddying the waters and believing his own perceptions to completely reflect objective reality. And I don't need to say anything about confirmation bias--the concept gets beaten to death here.

Typing other people is so, so subjective because it doesn't have as strong a basis in reality as we'd hope.

Well, the line doesn't really apply anyways at the end of the day. It's just one man's graph with one man's line to spite one ESTJ boss. (Supported by some kid's blog.) It doesn't actually change anybodies IQ.

(Edit: Oops, kind of just repeated your post, Bologna. What I meant to say was, "yeah, what he said! The muddy water stuff.")

 

[Mal12345]

Well, the line doesn't really apply anyways at the end of the day. It's just one man's graph with one man's line to spite one ESTJ boss. (Supported by some kid's blog.) It doesn't actually change anybodies IQ.

(Edit: Oops, kind of just repeated your post, Bologna. What I meant to say was, "yeah, what he said! The muddy water stuff.")

What kid, what blog? You lost me there.